MEGADYNE™ Telescoping Soft Tissue Dissector

Powered by GEM Technology. Less thermal damage* and a flexible working length. 

MEGADYNE™ Telescoping Soft Tissue Dissector

Features & Benefits

The GEM Difference

The GEM Difference

The patented intelligent Geometric Electron Modulation (GEM) Technology can deliver the efficiency and hemostasis you want with significantly less thermal damage* than standard monopolar electrosurgery. Power delivered fluctuates based on tissue impedance, which was designed for less thermal damage.

Less Instrument Exchange vs. Scalpel

Less Instrument Exchange vs. Scalpel

This multifunctional tool can be used for incision, dissection, and coagulation, which may increase surgical efficiency. Can eliminate the need for a surgical scalpel in the OR, removing a risk for sharps injuries.1

Less Need to Exchange Electrodes§

Less Need to Exchange Electrodes§

Telescoping shaft extends up to 6" for access to deep surgical cavities.

Less Surgical Smoke vs. Stainless Steel Blades

Less Surgical Smoke vs. Stainless Steel Blades

99.6% less surgical smoke.2 97% reduction in toxic BaP.2 75% reduction in phenanthrene, a known irritant.2

Supporting Documentation

Product Support

MEGADYNE™ Telescoping Soft Tissue Dissectors Product Information

MEGADYNE™ Telescoping Soft Tissue Dissector Fact Sheet

MEGADYNE™ Telescoping Soft Tissue Dissectors Value Analysis Summary

Geometric Electron Modulation (GEM) Technology Technical Monograph

References

*    In ACE Mode vs. standard monopolar electrosurgery: In a preclinical porcine model on abdominal wall dermis that measured thermal damage via histology (p<0.05). (075571-190301) 

†    Based on proprietary GEM Technology and preclinical porcine testing on abdominal wall dermis that measured thermal damage via histology (p<0.05). GEM Technology and test results are achieved when used on the Megadyne Mega Power generator in GEM Mode only. (083164-190305) 

‡    (075573-190306)  

§    (100922-190429)

¶    (100925-190429)

1.    In a clinical study vs. cold steel scalpel that demonstrated noninferior wound healing/scar formation via the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) (p<0.0001). Lee BJ, et al. Advanced Cutting Effect System versus Cold Steel Scalpel: Comparative Wound Healing and Scar Formation in Targeted Surgical Applications. Plast Reconstr Surgery Glob Open. 2014;2(10). (075570-190305)

2.    In ACE Mode vs. standard monopolar electrosurgery: In a preclinical porcine model vs. uncoated stainless steel blades at 60W (p<0.001). Kisch T, et al. Electrocautery Devices with Feedback Mode and Teflon-Coated Blades Create Less Surgical Smoke for a Quality Improvement in the Operating Theater. Medicine, 2015;94(27). (075563-190304) 

For complete indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse reactions, please reference full package insert.